DEVYANSHU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused, for quashing of FIR No. 31/18 dated 23.2.2018, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of MV Act, registered with Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that a car accident occurred on 23.2.2018 at Kandyali, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., which was being driven by the petitioner, whereas respondent No. 2-Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? complainant was the occupant of that car. Allegedly, in the aforesaid accident, respondent No. 2 suffered injuries. Subsequently, on the basis of statement made by respondent No. 2 FIR as detailed herein above, came to be registered at Police Station Kumarsain under the aforesaid provisions of law. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the court of learned ACJM, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, and now the case is fixed for 2.11.2019. However, during the pendency of the case, both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have resolved to settle their matter amicably inter-se them as is evident from the compromise placed on record (Annexure P-1). It has been stated in the compromise that on account of mis-understanding, FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 and as such, both the petitioner with the intervention of respectable members of the society have decided to compromise the matter and withdraw the case lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 namely Sh. Aryan Sharma, who is present in Court, and is being represented by Mr. Amit Jamwal, learned counsel, stated on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. He categorically stated that compromise placed on record bears his signature. As per compromise, he does not want to pursue FIR lodged at his behest and has no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law are ordered to be quashed and set-aside. His statement made on oath is taken on record.

(3.) Having heard statement made by the complainant/respondent No. 2 as well as perused compromise placed on record, Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly stated that since there are very bleak/remote chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused in view of the statement made by the respondent-complainant, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed and set-aside are allowed to sustain and as such, prayer made in the present petition can be accepted by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC.